If I know geeks, and I think I do, we have a tendency to lose the forest for the trees in an argument whenever someone uses any label. Ever. We love to point out exceptions, get caught up in semantics. So, before I could even start writing a post about “nice guy” superheroes, I found myself debating myself to the point I was saying things like “Who do you think you are, deciding who’s a nice guy and who isn’t!?”
Photos just don’t do the man justice.
So, let’s keep it simple. For one, I am fully aware I am defending characters most everyone loves anyway, so there’s really no debate per se. The genesis of this post, however, did come from the age-old Superman Vs. Batman debate over at Word of the Nerd during a Film Fans podcast – or, rather, from this one thing Bex said that made me mad. “Superman is boring,” she said. SUPERMAN IS BORING. Then, she said it again somewhere on Facebook.
Bex and I have been friends for over 25 years. We have dated the same guys (at different times), alternated being thinner than the other (something Bex is soundly winning in our 30s and don’t think I haven’t noticed) and stubbornly refused to watch each others’ favorite shows – none of which threatened our bond the way “Superman is boring,” did.
Liberal use of hyperbole aside, this got me thinking about why on Earth I was so upset. In the standard “hero-super-hero vs. anti–super-hero” match-ups of Iron Man vs. Captain America and Superman Vs. Batman, surely as little as 5 years ago I would have gone with Iron Man in the latter and called a tie in the former. I like Batman. I like dark and brooding and broken. I like the charm and swagger and underlying courage of Tony Stark, too. While the tropes involved with anti-heroes are just as trope-y as the ones associated with goody-two-shoes heroes, the added layer of secrecy and damage associated with Batsy and Stark add to their magnetism on screen and on the page. In some ways, I can understand being bored by the guy who does the right thing on instinct rather than after a battle with demons. I mean, what’s so interesting about being a plain ol’ good guy?
I do know this is not Christopher Reeve. Such is my affection for Superman, I even enjoyed the much maligned Superman Returns. The opening credits brought tears of nostalgia to my eyes.
Thing is, to me, everything is interesting about him. Christopher Reeve surely gets part of the credit. My first crush at age 4, his portrayal of the bumbling-and-corny Clark Kent and the charming-and-goody-goody Superman formed my concept of “hero” at young age. Deep down in my hippocampus, the memories of the music, the suit, the smile and the patient, open heart of the hero wired my brain; to this day I find nothing more heart-stopping than a man with black hair, blue eyes, and ethics.
But it’s more than the all-American, chiseled good-looks that keep me interested in heroes like Captain America and Superman. Watching someone accept a role that carries profound responsibility as easily as if they were slipping into a familiar pair of shoes in spite of the fact that they know they will sometimes be reviled for it, sometimes broken hearted because of it, is interesting. Perhaps in part this is because we have seen so many anti-heros rise to prominence in the days since Clint Eastwood brought a dirtier edge to another genre known for larger than life protagonists, the Western. After arguably two decades of Batman dominance (the first two Burton films count), it is different – powerful – to see a guy who smiles as much as he scowls; one who not only steps-up and saves lives, but also treats people kindly – women included. I’m intrigued by men who are good – just through and through, decent. (I would love to see more women super-heroes that fit the bill as well, by the way – feel free to suggest some in comments. Buffy is the only one who comes to mind for me.)
If I were in his crew, I’d sure as hell do a lot less bitching at him.
The best fictional, yet non-superhero character I can think of who falls into the compelling-good-guy mold is Rick Grimes on The Walking Dead. Shane is more bat-shit crazy, Daryl more hardcore, but no one commands my attention like Rick, the sheriff’s deputy who works steadily to keep humanity and reason alive in a world turned upside down. Rick makes the hard decisions, does the things no one else wants to do (think: Barnaggedon). He does not kill lightly or easily, but you better believe he will bust a cap in the ass of any ne’er-do-well in a rundown bar who intends to do harm, and he will do it with a clean conscience. He will not, however, leave an equally suspect kid to be eaten by zombies while impaled on a fence. You see the difference – or, I hope you do.
I empathize with Shane because he was this close to being cast as the hero of that group, but when Rick shows up alive and well, everyone knows by some unspoken instinct that the real hero just arrived. I care about Daryl and if we were in battle, I’d want him on my side, but it is Rick whom I tune-in to see. He’s the most interesting – the one who represents something quiet and good about civilization.
In the end, I think I have simply changed in some way. Long time lover of the anti-hero, I have turned into a nice girl looking for a nice guy in the world of make-believe. As I near the end of my 30s, I prefer calm decency to angst and drama. Or, who knows, maybe I just really, really like Chris Evan’s shoulders.
Honor IS interesting.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Maybe it is semantics… but I’m not sure what constitutes a “nice guy” anymore. A nice guy doesn’t have to be a pushover, but a nice guy shouldn’t push his views on others either.
To that end… I counter you with this notion…
I think Christopher Reeve was a nice guy. Everything I’ve heard about him supports that… but I’m not sure Superman is a nice guy.
Given we are debating a fictional character
Superman does use his power to some extent to push his world-view… when paired with Batman, Superman is more likely to chastise Batman for his world-view than Batman is to chastise Superman… by which I mean… Superman can’t fathom why Batman is who he is… but Batman understands and accepts Superman’s semi-limited world view.
The different writers over the years have pushed the characters in different directions… but in between the lines, I’ve seen Batman be more willing to accept that there are other ways to do things than his way, moreso than I’ve seen Superman. Superman has a tendency to expect others to see things his way because he believes he is right and fair… Batman will actually back-off if someone else does something that works even if not the way he would do it.
All other things being equal… Batman would be fine with Superman existing… Superman would want to keep bugging Batman to change and be more like him.
I could go on forever on this kind of topic, it is really open-ended… but before I close here.
I could make a case for Oracle… Barbara Gordon really… probably moreso as Oracle than as Batgirl… but unless I missed something, I think she is a good example of a strong female character that has a solid moral compass and qualifies as a “nice guy”.
Stewart – I think that pushy-ness of world view from Superman might also be mirrored in Captain America during the Civil War stuff. Is that right? I read a lot about it when doing Avengers Boot Camp, but haven’t actually read the source material. I know he and Stark were on opposing sides, but am not sure exactly how it played out.
It has been a while since I read the Civil War story… but what I can remember, I’m not sure how much I can say here without spoilers. The short spoiler-free version is that if Cap was preachy it would have been easy to miss because Iron Man was so far off the mark in what he was doing in that story.
I have to admit, though, prior to Civil War… I used to “fear” that Cap would be too preachy, but I was pleasantly surprised at the way most writers handled the gig… yes, Cap is an American symbol and very patriotic… but he seems to embody a patriotism in the truest sense, by which I mean that he doesn’t believe you have to agree with him to be an American.
So… while there may be some exceptions, I found Captain America to be surprisingly less pushy/preachy than you would expect from his name.
I think there’s more to characters than simply, hero and anti hero. Or I like to think so anyway.
I think of hero and anti-hero as broad, holistic terms that can encompass many shades of grey. And, let’s not forget that characters can move and change in their lives.
I go back and forth on this… Sometimes I like my fiction to be black & white… good = very good, bad = pure evil… but other times, I like my fiction complicated… where the good guy does some questionable things and the bad guy has some redeeming qualities.
In reality, the world is of course mostly gray areas… but in fiction sometimes it is fun to just go to the extremes and have at it.
I think even in good guy = pure good stories, if their written well there can be complexity.
I’m going back to an Alan Moore Superman story for this example. For the Man Who has Everything. It’s also the basis for an episode of the Justice League cartoon I believe.
Anyway in it Superman gets a parasite attached to him by the bad(no redeeming qualities) guy. This parasite makes him complacent by giving him his deepest desire, which in Superman’s case is living on Krypton.
However things aren’t all that great. There is a big political upheaval going on, and his father is right in the middle of it.
Now obviously not every Superman story can be like this, but I guess what I’m saying is Superman’s psyche can be interesting and not so predictably – go save that dude while showing off my pecs. It just has to be written with care.
(Totally screwed up my email and who knows what else when I hit post before, you’d think I had this whole commenting thing figured out by now)
First of all: paragraph four, sentence one, I read as “why on Earth 1 was I upset” That gives you an idea about how much I read and think about comic books.
I still think that you can define a character like Superman as a “good guy”. Yes he can appear to push his view on people. Maybe, that’s because his view is that “everyone can be saved”. The kitty in the tree, the damsel in distress, the thief who is just trying to feed his family and the super-villain who’s maybe just misunderstood. That’s not the easy way out, that’s going the extra mile and all those other cliche sayings.
I think what makes society so accepting of the anti-hero’s is that they like to relate to these types of characters. That kind of “I mind my own business and look out for myself, but if you really push the issue – every once in awhile I will do the right thing, begrudgingly so, but don’t expect it everytime” mentality. We’re good people, but don’t expect us to be every hour of every day, nobody’s perfect, and that’s the reality of life. Real Superman-type “good guys” are always looking out for others and always going out of their way for others, usually sacrificing some facet of their life in the process. That’s hard to live up to, and it can be a intimidating to compare yourself to that.
I’ve always said that the reason Batman continues to be more popular than Superman is because he’s more relatable: he’s human and he’s flawed (usually only his psyche). Superman isn’t the peak of the human race. He’s alien. His Super-ness is unattainable. Interestingly enough, the best of Superman, what makes him the ultimate boy scout is his humanity.
Yes! It’s the “everyone can be saved” and “more human than human” kind of thing that makes me love him all the more. Thanks for the comment. Really good stuff.
You know, I gotta agree with Bex…Superman is boring. I mean, he can do everything and when something does go wrong, he reverses the rotation of the Earth, fixes what needs fixin’ and then he’s back in the Fortress of Solitude, kickin’ back with a frozen drink.
Like your points. Let me briefly add; there are 5 basic heroic motivations and most of the “good guys” you’re talking about are motivated by a desire to Uphold the Good – to show us examples of how good we all can be. This is what I think you are getting at with your Walking Dead example. Batman and most anti-heroes are motivated by a Search for Justice. The best example of this relationship gone horribly wrong is Nite Owl 2 and Rorschach from the Watchmen universe.
But the reality is that both viewpoints are needed. The way they work together is like a prosecuting attorney and a defense attorney. The prosecutor seeks justice – to punish wrong-doers. His/her need is to save humanity from the awful people who plague us. But the defender cares for the accused and the good points about that person. He may have done something wrong but still has other redeeming qualities that deserve mercy and kindness. I think the way this works best is between Batman and Superman as they both respect one another despite disagreeing on the true nature of goodness. The fact is that the whole meaning of the word justice is to protect the innocent through the punishment of the guilty. So if there’s only punishment, everyone will eventually be guilty and there’ll be no humanity left to save. And if everyone there is no punishment then there will be no innocents left eventually. So the answer is there must be both.
When this is not recognised, then Superman _can_ be boring. But he is not always that way. Good writers know how to put him in a story which is meaningful. Power level has nothing to do with it.
-Jeff
Well said, Jeff Woods! I see a “Law and Order: DCU” in NBC’s future. Make the pitch!
Yeah, I don’t think it’s his niceness that makes Superman boring. It’s his invulnerability. It’s easy for him to do the right thing, all the time, because he faces no consequences to his actions. No legal, economic, or physical force can be brought against him.
Captain America stands up against the US government in the Civil War even though he knows he faces the loss of all his resources, arrest, and possible death. Not only that, but he knows for a fact that he is outgunned in every way. He can only win by using his brains and skills.
Superman almost never faces any real threat. Worse comes to worse, he can literally just leave the planet. He can’t lose. Unless there is kryptonite. Which there always is because it’s the only way to bring any dramatic tension into the story.
THAT’s why Supes is boring.
I would agree with this, except that it never seems true. If nothing else, Superman cares about people too much to peace out if they are in danger. To me, his invulnerability is no more suspense-killing than any other super hero. He has weaknesses – there are ways to beat him, both physically (with Kryptonite) and mentally, by threatening those he loves.
And if you read old silver age Superman stories it seemed like(at least according to the covers) lots of things could take down Superman. Still those gimmicky stupid days our behind us.
I think Proffitt’s trying to say you have to harm Superman’s friends to get to him. And I know that’s not what we all want out of our superhero stories, but clearly something in Superman resonates with us otherwise he wouldn’t have been around so dang long.
When talking about complexity…
A nice guy, by definition, can never be the villain… but a nice guy doesn’t have to be a hero… and conversely, a hero doesn’t have to be a nice guy.
A hero can do bad things, and a villain can do good things.
The key thing, relevant to this article… is that sometimes people mistakenly associate a hero with being a nice guy, and that doesn’t have to be the case. You might see the villain helping his old-lady mom across the street and think “that’s a nice guy” as long as you don’t see him killing people in a bank robbery later!
Similarly, the hero might be doing good things and he might even be doing so through altruism… but that doesn’t mean he is a nice guy. You’d have to know more about him to make that statement.